Linux-Advocacy Digest #665, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:09:55 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:35:27 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:46:55 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > >> >> -Children are already the responsibility of their parents.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> And children are punished for the sins of their parents?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Darwinism in action.
> > > >>
> > > >> Darwinism is about "survival of the fittest", not "survival of
> > > >> the fattest".
> > > >
> > > >Those who can't feed themselves and their children are not fit.
> > > >QED.
> > >
> > > Again, you make the flawed assumption that the unfitness of the
> > > parents implies the unfitness of their children.
> >
> > That's the safe way to bet.
>
> What is your justification for this?
How many high academic achievers can you find in, oh,
South Central LA
the Cabrini Green or Robert Taylor Homes housing projects in Chicago.
or any other slum of choice (including trailer parks).
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:13:14 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:04:53 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
>
> >> Again, you make the flawed assumption that the unfitness of the parents
> >> implies the unfitness of their children.
> >
> >That's the safe way to bet.
>
> If you want to go on statistics alone, and make blanket assumptions based
> on averages, I ask you this -- would you endorse a company policy that
> dictates that African Americans shouldn't be hired due to the fact that
> the "safe way to bet" is that they have inferior "intelligence" ( despite
> considerable overlap of different ethnic groups ... ) Oh, I refer you to
> your "bible" for the relevant statistics.
No.
Simply overturn the Supreme Court ruling that disallows IQ tests
for job placement. [Yes, Congress *CAN* overturn an SC ruling...that's
why you hear congress always blabbing about overturning the "flag
burning" decision -- nothing worse than some asshole politician
who wants to wrap himself in the flag and burn the constitution,
rather than wrap himself in the constitution, and allow some nut
to burn a flag.
If any politician feels threatened by a citizen burning a flag, then
perhaps that very same politician has a guilty conscience and should
remove himself (or herself) from office post-haste.
Otherwise, we are no better than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:23:52 -0400
Chad Irby wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > It's funny how many people forget *why* things were so bad during
> > > Carter's Presidency.
> > >
> > > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
> >
> > ...Democrat...
>
> Democrat and Republican. Five years of Johnson, five years of Nixon.
>
Johnson got us IN
Nixon got us OUT.
Spot the difference.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:26:44 -0400
Chad Irby wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > Courageous
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
> > > > > Crisis that was out of anyone's control (in this hemisphere,
> > > > > anyway),
> > > > > Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them...
> > > >
> > > > You are woefully confused about certain things, like the
> > > > order in which certain Presidents were elected, for example.
> > >
> > > The Vietnam War was expanded in the '60s, ran through '73, and the
> > > payments on it were stalled until after Ford lost in 1976, dropping the
> > > financial issues for it into Carter's lap.
> >
> > The Vietnam War was DEMOCRAT Johnson's baby.
>
> Actually, American involvement started during Eisenhower's watch,
> started growing during Kennedy's short term, and expended to a
> full-scale shitstorm during Johnson's term... so it wasn't Carter's
> fault that the economic issues from that war landed with a sickening
> thud during Carter's Presidency, was it?
>
> > In case you don't recall...
> > REPUBLICAN Nixon got us ***OUT*** of that boondoggle.
>
> ...in the face of near-revolution at home, after sticking with it for
> five years.
Pulling out of an active warzone without surrendering all of your men
and equipment is NOT an easy task, ESPECIALLY when your forces are
the strongest in said warzone. (i.e. you cannot rely on any other
friendly force to effectively cover your withdrawal).
>
> > > The Energy Crisis was during Carter's Presidency.
> >
> > The OPEC embargo lasted less than 6 months.
>
> Yep, and that's the six months it happened.
And yet, due to Carter's bungling, the Energy "Crisis" lasted for 3
years.
>
> > > The hostages were taken during Carter's Presidency and released after
> > > Reagan won, partly through the Iran-Conrta situation.
> >
> > They hostages were in captivity for 444 days.
> >
> > They were released shortly after the election....only about
> > 180 days after Reagan secured enough primary delegates.
> >
> > What about the preceeding 260 days ***BEFORE** Reagan became
> > the nominee-apparent?
> >
> > Why couldn't Carter accomplish in 9 MONTHS AS PRESIDENT what
> > Reagan supposedly accomplished in 6 months as a mere nominee???
> >
> > Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
> He couldn't get Iran to release some hostages because Reagan was busily
> bribing the Iranian government to *not* release them, in order to win
> the presidential election. It was all uncovered during the Iran-Contra
> hearings, if you'll remember.
"The absence of evidence makes the charges all the more credible"
Give me a break.
>
> One thing about the Iranians... they give good value when you bribe them
> right.
>
> --
>
> Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:28:13 -0400
david raoul derbes wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Chad Irby wrote:
> >>
> >> Courageous
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
> >> > > Crisis that was out of anyone's control (in this hemisphere, anyway),
> >> > > Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them...
> >> >
> >> > You are woefully confused about certain things, like the
> >> > order in which certain Presidents were elected, for example.
> >>
> >> The Vietnam War was expanded in the '60s, ran through '73, and the
> >> payments on it were stalled until after Ford lost in 1976, dropping the
> >> financial issues for it into Carter's lap.
> >
> >The Vietnam War was DEMOCRAT Johnson's baby.
> >
> >In case you don't recall...
> > REPUBLICAN Nixon got us ***OUT*** of that boondoggle.
> >
> >>
> >> The Energy Crisis was during Carter's Presidency.
> >
> >The OPEC embargo lasted less than 6 months.
> >
> >>
> >> The hostages were taken during Carter's Presidency and released after
> >> Reagan won, partly through the Iran-Conrta situation.
> >
> >They hostages were in captivity for 444 days.
> >
> >They were released shortly after the election....only about
> >180 days after Reagan secured enough primary delegates.
>
> The hostages were released within *minutes* of Reagan taking the oath
> of office. Those of us who were adults in 1980 remember this very, very
> well. Most of the networks had to do a split screen of the jet taking
> off from the Tehran airport and Reagan's inaugural address.
>
> The mullahs were so angry at Carter for the abortive hostage rescue
> that they were never, ever going to release their captives so long
> as Carter was president.
So, you admit that no bribe was necessary, as all of the Reagan-haters
are always frothing at the mouth about.
>
> David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >
> >What about the preceeding 260 days ***BEFORE** Reagan became
> >the nominee-apparent?
> >
> >Why couldn't Carter accomplish in 9 MONTHS AS PRESIDENT what
> >Reagan supposedly accomplished in 6 months as a mere nominee???
> >
> >Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
> >
> >
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:33:20 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > david raoul derbes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
> > > > > Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to
> > > > > >me it
> > > > > >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where
> > > > > >I
> > > > > >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could
> > > > > >trouble
> > > > > >farmers.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are very much mistaken.
> > > > >
> > > > > At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the
> > > > > government
> > > > > for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the
> > > > > government,
> > > > > she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
> > > > >
> > > > > She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to
> > > > > repeat
> > > > > the process.
> > > > >
> > > > > And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax. Those who think
> > > > > the
> > > > > inheritance tax is some sort of wicked thing should perhaps read
> > > > > Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > No. We need to eliminate the inheritance tax (PRECISELY for the
> > > > reasons described above), and replace it with a sales tax.
> > >
> > > No, we need to have exceptions to the inheritance tax to allow family
> > > farms or family businesses up to a certain value to be passed along.
> > >
> > > If you're so against handouts, why do you support the multimillion
> > > dollar handouts rich parents pass along to their children?
> >
> > Because it's THEIR money to do with as they please.
> >
> > I'm not against handouts, I'm against government pickpockets
> > using me as the financial basis for their handouts.
>
> Why does the child of a rich person deserve a handout more than the
> child of a poor person?
Deserving has nothing to do with it
It's the rich person's ***CHOICE**** to give their money away to
whomever
they see fit.
Your problem is....you innately ABHOR the idea of the people who earn
the money being allowed to CHOOSE what the fuck to do with it.
Well.....YOU GO TO HELL!
>
> > Why is it that every time a liberal wants to do good, it always
> > depends on stealing money from me....
>
> Probably because you're more interested in your own luxury than in the
> well-being of the society you live in.
Which is my right as an American citizen.
Hint fucking hint: EVERYBODY is free to pursue happiness by whatever
non-criminal means which they choose. There is no guarantee of
happiness,
merely the right to ****PURSUE**** it.
Is any of this getting through to you, namby-pampy socialist?
You ask, "well, who's gonna do something for the poor?"
Fuck that.... let them do something for themselves for once in their
life.
I've been flat broke before....on a couple of occassions, in fact.
I've never taken a dime of government aid, and never will.
Why? Because I don't believe in stealing from my neighbors
just because I can't afford steak that month.
>
> --
> This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
> occurred during shipment.
>
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:48:45 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No - Reagan asked congress to spend less every single year he was in
> office. They refused to spend less.
> http://reagan.webteamone.com/images/deficits.gif
What that neat little graph doesn't show is the things they wanted to
spend money on. More B-1 bombers and supercarriers, anyone?
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:39:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Iglesias wrote:
>
> > While I am fully agree to your points, I think that most users
> > do not want anything but a "Please wait ..." window, perhaps it
> > could be a configurable option ? (I mean, to show things or not).
>
> Actually, I think the public wants a "Please Wait, I'm X% finished,
and
> should be finished in X minutes" windows.
>
After years of Windoze experience, I doubt that I'd trust a progress
bar. I've done stuff in MS Access that has gone to 99% in under a
minute and then stayed at 99% for hours before completing.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:51:05 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was never a finer President in recent history.
Yeah, they should all use astrology to run the country.....
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:53:57 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you know what a third-world nation is?
> > >
> > > It's a very fuzzy definition, and Russia is dropping further and
> > > further into that every day. Witness the Kursk.
> >
> > Third-world nations typically have nuclear-powered missile submarines?
>
> "First-world" nations have nuclear submarines that work, and don't screw
> around for a week before asking for help in rescuing the crew.
As if the old Soviet Union superpower would have asked for help from the
West?
As if the United States never lost a nuclear sub?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:54:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > david raoul derbes wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>, Andrew
> > > > > > J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US,
> > > > > > >but to me it seems unlikely that a family farm would be
> > > > > > >bothered with it. Where I live inheritance tax starts way
> > > > > > >above the level where it could trouble farmers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are very much mistaken.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay
> > > > > > the government for her sister and brother in law's farm. To
> > > > > > be fair to the government, she had ten years to pay it off.
> > > > > > She managed, but it wasn't easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get
> > > > > > to repeat the process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax. Those
> > > > > > who think the inheritance tax is some sort of wicked thing
> > > > > > should perhaps read Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on
> > > > > > the subject.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. We need to eliminate the inheritance tax (PRECISELY for
> > > > > the reasons described above), and replace it with a sales
> > > > > tax.
> > > >
> > > > No, we need to have exceptions to the inheritance tax to allow
> > > > family farms or family businesses up to a certain value to be
> > > > passed along.
> > > >
> > > > If you're so against handouts, why do you support the
> > > > multimillion dollar handouts rich parents pass along to their
> > > > children?
> > >
> > > Because it's THEIR money to do with as they please.
> > >
> > > I'm not against handouts, I'm against government pickpockets
> > > using me as the financial basis for their handouts.
> >
> > Why does the child of a rich person deserve a handout more than the
> > child of a poor person?
>
> Deserving has nothing to do with it
>
> It's the rich person's ***CHOICE**** to give their money away to
> whomever they see fit.
>
> Your problem is....you innately ABHOR the idea of the people who earn
> the money being allowed to CHOOSE what the fuck to do with it.
>
> Well.....YOU GO TO HELL!
No. What I "innately ABHOR" is the idea that some people get tons of
money without doing a thing to earn it while others work hard their
entire lives and stay poor.
> > > Why is it that every time a liberal wants to do good, it always
> > > depends on stealing money from me....
> >
> > Probably because you're more interested in your own luxury than in
> > the well-being of the society you live in.
>
> Which is my right as an American citizen.
The society you live it has decided that it isn't.
[snip]
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:55:28 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > Actually, American involvement started during Eisenhower's watch,
> > started growing during Kennedy's short term, and expended to a
> > full-scale shitstorm during Johnson's term... so it wasn't Carter's
> > fault that the economic issues from that war landed with a sickening
> > thud during Carter's Presidency, was it?
> >
> > > In case you don't recall...
> > > REPUBLICAN Nixon got us ***OUT*** of that boondoggle.
> >
> > ...in the face of near-revolution at home, after sticking with it for
> > five years.
>
> Pulling out of an active warzone without surrendering all of your men
> and equipment is NOT an easy task, ESPECIALLY when your forces are
> the strongest in said warzone. (i.e. you cannot rely on any other
> friendly force to effectively cover your withdrawal).
So how many of those five years should it have taken to pull out? One?
Two?
Or more like six months?
> > > > The Energy Crisis was during Carter's Presidency.
> > >
> > > The OPEC embargo lasted less than 6 months.
> >
> > Yep, and that's the six months it happened.
>
> And yet, due to Carter's bungling, the Energy "Crisis" lasted for 3
> years.
Actually, no. It was pretty much the six months, plus a bit for people
to stop being panicky about gas prices.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
